The ABC allows comments on some of our articles, as a space for you to contribute your thoughts about news events and participate in civil conversations about topical issues.

All comments are moderated and we make no guarantees that your contribution will be published.

Reply

Author

Email

Date/Time

10 Dec 2016 2:19:00pm

Text

PreviousMessage

Mr. An-Na'im, despite of any ruling by any governing body, Muslims are not a race, nor a people, therefore, anything said against Islam cannot be deemed "racism." The bans proposed by the OIC are aspects of Shariah, to be enforced upon all including non-muslims, which you have stated elsewhere cannot happen. Of course Islamophobia exists, as when anyone in the West, such as Theo Van-Gogh, says anything negative about Islam, they are systematically slaughtered. It seems that the definition of "defamation of religion" has been set by Muslims who issue Fatwas against anyone who questions their religion and riot in the West in order to pressure the government to prosecute courageous men like Geert Wilders and silence cartoonists like Molly Norris (she's now fearing for her life in Canada - No moderate Muslims support her [do you support her freedom of speech?]); these same Muslims slander Jesus Christ every day, by not taking Him at His word that He is God (John 10:22-34). Well, when your prime example is Mohammad, it's no wonder that the devout do this. Mohammad urged any of his followers to kill Afak (http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/abu-afak.htm) and bint Marwan (http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/asma.html) because these poets questioned his legitimacy. Are you concerened that any size portion of your bretheren behave in this manner, using the Quran and Sunnah to justify their actions? If the defamation of religion concerns the "prohibition of dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority and hatred and acts of violence and incitement to such acts", then does this mean that Quran 3:110, 4:144, 5:60, 8:55, 13:33-34, 39:9, amongst others, are now illegal? What about the 60% of hateful remarks about "kaffir" (a derogatory term)? So, if we aren't to "...dismiss the underlying concerns because we distrust the motives of those voicing them", then does that mean we should lend a legitimate ear to Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabaab, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and those who riot and cause violence because of cartoons they don't like? Are we to sanction barbaric acts such as these? As Mr. Price said, "People have rights; thoughts, ideas, and dogmas do not."